Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Again, it was during 2000s when the meaning of adventure shifted from Grim Fandango to Tomb Rider. I just apologized for confusing the issue.

 

Excuse me when i take a sigh there. I meant exactly this point'n'click puzzle games when I responded to your post, so I think it's pretty obvious that pre-2000 terminology was understandable for me, making your apologies sound like mocking. Okay, end of the issue. Now back to topic: yes, I've heard of these games. I even played a few. I don't consider Torment anywhere close to the genre.

 

Is this *really* your preferred system? Really? It's garbage. Even If my ideal game contained very limited combat, I still wouldn't want this sort of system.

 

Where did I described it as my "preferred" system? I wrote it was not awful. And it wasn't, in a game that puts emphasis on story and not combat it was just enough. Not to say that it couldn't be done better.

 

So sorry but the argument "gameplay getting in the way of the story" is just cringe worthy to hear and the reason most modern games suck really badly.

 

Funny, cause I see it exaclty other way around - it's all gameplay and no story nowadays. Mass Effect, for example, in my eyes sacrifices most of it's storytelling heritage for the sake of linear shooting corridors. Won't even mention Dragon Age. And newest Obsidian creation, Alpha Protocol, suffers from it too, to some degree - albeit rewarding the player with better dialogue, scenario and nonlinearity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get the opposite?

 

For example, Mass Effect 3 had "Story Mode," which allowed players to skip through the monotony of random fighting and "strategic play," in order to appreciate the story, world, and characters without having to tredge through the parts they wouldn't enjoy.

 

I don't particularly like some of the responses I've seen to this, and similar sentiments. There hasn't been any abuse or vitriol, which is great, but there is definitely a certain amount of disdain.

 

I'm a story-driven gamer. In my particular case, I also really enjoy the gameplay elements of RPGs, and I foresee myself trying out some of these increased difficulty modes (although I'll be doing that after I've done a complete playthrough). For me, unlocking the story as a reward for completing gameplay challenges really works.

 

However, I don't see a reason why someone shouldn't be allowed to play a game purely to experience the story, or why they should be disparaged for it. Saying something like "go read a book or watch a movie" isn't helpful - or even cogent. Experiencing a story interactively - even stripped of its combat elements - is another experience entirely. That's something I think a majority of RPG fans can agree on. It might also be that the story told by a particular game is not one you can experience anywhere else.

 

So I think asking for a mode that removes combat, or (more likely to be implementable) one that makes combat vanishingly easy is a perfectly valid request. Real time with no pause necessary. Real time with no action on the player's part necessary. It's not the option I would choose, but I'm certainly not going to belittle someone who does want to play the game that way, or fault the developers for including that option, as well as their more difficult modes, in the game.

If the ability to avoid combat is part of the game, that's fine. Even admirable. However, that should mean one is using gameplay to avoid it. Not just pressing a skip button.

 

If a skip button exists, that means gameplay and story are seperate elements. Which means the game is a book that sometimes features banal slog your way through combat. The two should be able to be seperated because it should be be a cohesive experience.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ability to avoid combat is part of the game, that's fine. Even admirable. However, that should mean one is using gameplay to avoid it. Not just pressing a skip button.

 

If a skip button exists, that means gameplay and story are seperate elements. Which means the game is a book that sometimes features banal slog your way through combat. The two should be able to be seperated because it should be be a cohesive experience.

 

Thank you. /endargument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So sorry but the argument "gameplay getting in the way of the story" is just cringe worthy to hear and the reason most modern games suck really badly.

 

Funny, cause I see it exaclty other way around - it's all gameplay and no story nowadays. Mass Effect, for example, in my eyes sacrifices most of it's storytelling heritage for the sake of linear shooting corridors. Won't even mention Dragon Age. And newest Obsidian creation, Alpha Protocol, suffers from it too, to some degree - albeit rewarding the player with better dialogue, scenario and nonlinearity.

What you're describing here is simply the effects of bad level/encounter design coupled with a tedius, one dimensional combat system contained within games that otherwise focus entirely on a story-driven cinematic experience.

 

You cannot with any semblance of honesty describe ME3 and Dragon Age 2 as anything other than Story-foccused and story-driven.... not when gameplay is interrupted every 3-5 minutes with a cutscene. Not when half the recruitable NPCs are 'romanceable'. Not when spoken line word-counts are something like 700,000+. Not when the game itself forces your own character to spew out lines, and sometimes whole monologues, without your input.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So sorry but the argument "gameplay getting in the way of the story" is just cringe worthy to hear and the reason most modern games suck really badly.

 

Funny, cause I see it exaclty other way around - it's all gameplay and no story nowadays. Mass Effect, for example, in my eyes sacrifices most of it's storytelling heritage for the sake of linear shooting corridors. Won't even mention Dragon Age. And newest Obsidian creation, Alpha Protocol, suffers from it too, to some degree - albeit rewarding the player with better dialogue, scenario and nonlinearity.

What you're describing here is simply the effects of bad level/encounter design coupled with a tedius, one dimensional combat system contained within games that otherwise focus entirely on a story-driven cinematic experience.

 

You cannot with any semblance of honesty describe ME3 and Dragon Age 2 as anything other than Story-foccused and story-driven.... not when gameplay is interrupted every 3-5 minutes with a cutscene. Not when half the recruitable NPCs are 'romanceable'. Not when spoken line word-counts are something like 700,000+. Not when the game itself forces your own character to spew out lines, and sometimes whole monologues, without your input.

Yep.The corridor shooting/slashing galleries is there so people don't have to bother much with gameplay to get constant(and thus cheapened) gratification(wich might not mean disregarding gameplay but it surely means degrading it)and get to the next AWSHUM cinematic and romance(wich does mean disregarding gameplay).

 

The fact that modern stories suck too is another(albeit related) issue.

 

Also,Reddie,how is that you skipped the lengty part of the post?That wasn't accessible enough too?

Edited by Living One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like one of the devs to weigh in on this. Again, that is, since Sawyer answered the basic question way the hell back in the thread. ...But, specifically, I believe a non-combat mode, as opposed to tweaking difficulty, will take a lot of effort to implement and test. I can think of all sorts of issues that could arise from a non-combat mode and it seems to me that it would be a significant amount of resources. That's probably also true about some of the modes they've announced, but I still contend that there's significantly more people interested in the bragging rights combat mode than non-combat. The proof of that is that, while maybe the devs want it in there for their own fun, they didn't make the decision just for ****s and grins. They decided to put in special increased difficulty modes. They shot down the idea of non-combat. Asking them to take what I'm positive amounts to significant time in order to allow a small population of folks to have a very specific game doesn't make sense. At this point, Obsidz must believe the population who wants not just easy but literally no combat is small otherwise they'd have said something other than a very firm "no" when the subject first reared its ugly head.

 

I don't really care if they included a non-combat mode in the game, but I can't get over the idea of putting in a way for folks to skip game elements that were always explicitly stated as one of the main things behind the project in the first place when doing so would come at the expense of virtually anything. I'd rather see the guy who wanted more attention to transgender issues get his way since at least someone's getting more. Paying for a game where the devs took the time and effort to put in a non-combat is like shelling out the cash so your friend can spend time with a hooker only to have him talk to her for three hours and leave.


Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> A thread about an RPG, where combat is said to be a vital part of gameplay.

Advice Obsidian Forum Community:

> Remove combat!

There are many cancers eating the video game industry from inside. People who don't like games and lack elementary skills, but want to play them anyway, are one of the worst.

Edited by Tale
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why anyone would want to remove combat(though I don't even remember if anyone has asked for this specifically), instead of simply having the chance to avoid it. Sneaking and hiding and persuading and deceiving can prove just as challenging as combat, if they're made to be as challenging. I for one enjoy trying to do an pacifist playthrough in games that permit it, as it provides different types of challenges than combat.


Dude, I can see my own soul.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like one of the devs to weigh in on this. Again, that is, since Sawyer answered the basic question way the hell back in the thread. ...But, specifically, I believe a non-combat mode, as opposed to tweaking difficulty, will take a lot of effort to implement and test. I can think of all sorts of issues that could arise from a non-combat mode and it seems to me that it would be a significant amount of resources. That's probably also true about some of the modes they've announced, but I still contend that there's significantly more people interested in the bragging rights combat mode than non-combat. The proof of that is that, while maybe the devs want it in there for their own fun, they didn't make the decision just for ****s and grins. They decided to put in special increased difficulty modes. They shot down the idea of non-combat. Asking them to take what I'm positive amounts to significant time in order to allow a small population of folks to have a very specific game doesn't make sense. At this point, Obsidz must believe the population who wants not just easy but literally no combat is small otherwise they'd have said something other than a very firm "no" when the subject first reared its ugly head.

 

I don't really care if they included a non-combat mode in the game, but I can't get over the idea of putting in a way for folks to skip game elements that were always explicitly stated as one of the main things behind the project in the first place when doing so would come at the expense of virtually anything. I'd rather see the guy who wanted more attention to transgender issues get his way since at least someone's getting more. Paying for a game where the devs took the time and effort to put in a non-combat is like shelling out the cash so your friend can spend time with a hooker only to have him talk to her for three hours and leave.

It just can't be done. Even aside from the funding/budget/time needed to create such a "mode". Because we're pretty much looking at mutually exclusive philosophies. A game with a "no combat" mode would have character classes but no point to them. Whole pages of combat skills that go completely unused. Whole questlines that wouldn't make sense. Whole categories of loot that the player would find useless. Whole crafting and alchemy systems that serve no purpose. Whole areas/levels that would be empty. Whole sections of Lore that would be broken. An entire game's beastiary that would suddenly not exist. And then.... they'd have to compensate and add about 300,000 more lines of dialogue, or 500 more puzzles, and a whole slew of more non-violent quests. They'd have to, because otherwise, it'd be a painfully empty experience, since the mode in question just gutted 60% of the game., or more.

 

No. They'd have to make a seperate game.

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do not want to remove combat, they want to remove challenge. Gets in the way of the interactive storytelling, see?


Say no to popamole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot with any semblance of honesty describe ME3 and Dragon Age 2 as anything other than Story-foccused and story-driven.... not when gameplay is interrupted every 3-5 minutes with a cutscene. Not when half the recruitable NPCs are 'romanceable'. Not when spoken line word-counts are something like 700,000+. Not when the game itself forces your own character to spew out lines, and sometimes whole monologues, without your input.

 

I see interesting similarity here. On BSN it was used as an argument too, that because there is plenty of cutscenes and all ME3 is anything close to "story-driven". Well, no. That there is a cutscene doesn't mean it actually adds something to storyline. In my opinion, in the games you've mentioned they only serve as an entry to next shooting level. The very beginning is a good example: BSN users boasted that there is "solid 7-minute intro to the story", only that it doesn't ADDED anything, it basically just sets up as a fact that "now you have to go there and shoot". Same goes for romances (yes, I am a proponent of romances, but not when they are there at the expense of the plot, not as a part of it).

 

But that's a matter of opinion, I guess. I only want to make it clear that no, people who dislike combat may not come from any sort of "new" cRPG fanbase, they liked Infinity games just as you, but for different reasons.

 

Also,Reddie,how is that you skipped the lengty part of the post?That wasn't accessible enough too?

 

Well, it's hard to answer a chunk of text that was meant to be read in different thread and different context, even if it's somewhat relevant. Citiations are used to back up a point, not to make a point. And I have answered the point you were backing up (I think?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just use cheat codes or trainers. If people don't want any challenge and do not respect developer's work on gameplay enough to at least try and beat the game fair, then they have nothing to loose by using them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reddie, listen to me carefully. This project can be a milestone for crpgs. They did it in 90's and they will do it again But only if they don't listen fans like you.

 

Sorry they will use your money and will make a game for us. When you play this game you will feel like us. Because it's not a game you want right now, it's a game you deserve. A watchful protector, a dark game!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern gaming discourse: where you actually find yourself debating with people on a forum for a classic IE-style isometric CRPG who don't want combat.

  • Like 1

sonsofgygax.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cinematic and story driven can go in pair, but one does not equal the other

 

ME3 was cinematic, but not story driven. It was a shooter with some choices. It is a bit other form of Deus Ex. While those games have stories, they are not story driven, because all the choices are illusion and at the end you get 3 choices for ending, which were never even hinted at...

 

I can admit that from cinematic perspective ME3 is a nicely made interactive movie.

Edited by Darkpriest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot with any semblance of honesty describe ME3 and Dragon Age 2 as anything other than Story-foccused and story-driven.... not when gameplay is interrupted every 3-5 minutes with a cutscene. Not when half the recruitable NPCs are 'romanceable'. Not when spoken line word-counts are something like 700,000+. Not when the game itself forces your own character to spew out lines, and sometimes whole monologues, without your input.

 

I see interesting similarity here. On BSN it was used as an argument too, that because there is plenty of cutscenes and all ME3 is anything close to "story-driven". Well, no. That there is a cutscene doesn't mean it actually adds something to storyline. In my opinion, in the games you've mentioned they only serve as an entry to next shooting level. The very beginning is a good example: BSN users boasted that there is "solid 7-minute intro to the story", only that it doesn't ADDED anything, it basically just sets up as a fact that "now you have to go there and shoot". Same goes for romances (yes, I am a proponent of romances, but not when they are there at the expense of the plot, not as a part of it).

 

But that's a matter of opinion, I guess. I only want to make it clear that no, people who dislike combat may not come from any sort of "new" cRPG fanbase, they liked Infinity games just as you, but for different reasons.

 

Also,Reddie,how is that you skipped the lengty part of the post?That wasn't accessible enough too?

 

Well, it's hard to answer a chunk of text that was meant to be read in different thread and different context, even if it's somewhat relevant. Citiations are used to back up a point, not to make a point. And I have answered the point you were backing up (I think?)

The thread was 'just how easy will easy be'(I think..at page 3 or 4 but I don't remember)but you don't need the contest with that post.Also I posted a further a further clarification in response to Stun.But, no matter what dumbing down/putting skip gameplay buttons remains bad.

Edited by Living One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see interesting similarity here. On BSN it was used as an argument too, that because there is plenty of cutscenes and all ME3 is anything close to "story-driven". Well, no. That there is a cutscene doesn't mean it actually adds something to storyline. In my opinion, in the games you've mentioned they only serve as an entry to next shooting level. The very beginning is a good example: BSN users boasted that there is "solid 7-minute intro to the story", only that it doesn't ADDED anything, it basically just sets up as a fact that "now you have to go there and shoot". Same goes for romances (yes, I am a proponent of romances, but not when they are there at the expense of the plot, not as a part of it).

Sure. Those two games feature a monotonous, boring cycle of fight, then watch, then fight, then watch...from the tutorial to the credits. If their stories had actually been any good, though, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Because we wouldn't remember anything else about them. (more on this below) As for cutscenes, unless we're talking about cinematic combat finishing moves, cutscenes don't serve any purpose beyond driving a story. They are, by definition, the absense of gameplay. You cannot do anything but watch them.

 

Overall, I don't know. I sorta agree with you. The first time I played DA2, it felt like a bad MMO. Combat DID kinda feel overbearing in relation to the story, but IMO, that probably has more to do with the story just being an unengaging mass of literary kaka, instead of Combat being the focus of the game. Because the game Does drip with story. Even Varric's weapon is used as a story theme.

 

 

But that's a matter of opinion, I guess. I only want to make it clear that no, people who dislike combat may not come from any sort of "new" cRPG fanbase, they liked Infinity games just as you, but for different reasons.

I will point out, however, that for me, unless a game's story is absolutely mindblowingly fantastic (Ie. Planescape Torment's), I will need some form of competative diversion (ie. decent combat) to keep my attention, otherwise I see no point in sitting in front of my computer to play the damn thing, when I could, instead, lay in bed and read a book, or lounge on the couch and watch a movie, both of which tend to do stories a lot better than games do.

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just use cheat codes or trainers. If people don't want any challenge and do not respect developer's work on gameplay enough to at least try and beat the game fair, then they have nothing to loose by using them.

 

This.

 

If you want super easy combat just cheat. Problem solved


Free games updated 3/6/19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make a very easy mode where things can die by a fork, there we go. Very simple.

And there we have some voice of reason.

 

Every Infinity game had "very easy" difficulty. Enemies with only a 50% of normal health or something. Not a bad idea, if it only make the casual mob shut up. Cheats are also an option. In the end that's what is's for, to make the game easier.

 

But demanding some "special" mode to dumb down the combat, or "awesome" buttons to skip the combat entirely, that's some rubbish.

Edited by Flying Magician
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make a very easy mode where things can die by a fork, there we go. Very simple.

 

But that would involve having to use a weapon, albeit a very tiny weapon. Maybe you could just glare at them till they die or run away in fear.

 

Just trying to think outside the box.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point was made about easy combat. It's looking less like discussion now and more like a dogpile.

  • Like 1

"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how was that possible that classic adventure games died out since they are basically RPGs without combat. They have should just add some non-linearity and some customization, call them "exploration games". I wonder why nobody had that idea before.

 

As for the godlike races, they sound too much like their DnD counterparts. I'd love to see some updates about how their races/classes differ from standard DnD cliches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reddie, listen to me carefully. This project can be a milestone for crpgs. They did it in 90's and they will do it again But only if they don't listen fans like you.

 

Sorry they will use your money and will make a game for us. When you play this game you will feel like us. Because it's not a game you want right now, it's a game you deserve. A watchful protector, a dark game!

 

Actually I'm pretty sure it won't happen. Most of the complains/demands on part of the "hardcore" fanbase is also valid with regards to games that Obsidian guys made largely the way they wanted them - i.e. KOTOR 2, NWN 2 + expansions, Alpha Protocol. Because of it, I'm inclined to believe Eternity won't be even half - no, quater - as hardcore as you would like it to be. And the fact that they started from shunning turn-based combat reassures me in this belief :)

 

Modern gaming discourse: where you actually find yourself debating with people on a forum for a classic IE-style isometric CRPG who don't want combat.

 

Well, I guess same goes for people who don't want/don't care about story.

 

Sure. Those two games feature a monotonous, boring cycle of fight, then watch, then fight, then watch...from the tutorial to the credits. If their stories had actually been any good, though, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Because we wouldn't remember anything else about them. (more on this below) As for cutscenes, unless we're talking about cinematic combat finishing moves, cutscenes don't serve any purpose beyond driving a story. They are, by definition, the absense of gameplay. You cannot do anything but watch them.

 

Hey - that a cutscene lacks gameplay doesn't mean it's full of story. Many non-interactive media have large parts which, obviously, lack gameplay but also add nothing or very little to a story. Yes, I consider most of ME3 cutscenes to be fillers. And same goes for many interactive cutscenes (it used to be called "conversation" but I don't find it accurate anymore...).

 

Overall, I don't know. I sorta agree with you. The first time I played DA2, it felt like a bad MMO. Combat DID kinda feel overbearing in relation to the story, but IMO, that probably has more to do with the story just being an unengaging mass of literary kaka, instead of Combat being the focus of the game. Because the game Does drip with story. Even Varric's weapon is used as a story theme.

Haven't played DA2, but I'll take your word here.

 

 

I will point out, however, that for me, unless a game's story is absolutely mindblowingly fantastic (Ie. Planescape Torment's), I will need some form of competative diversion (ie. decent combat) to keep my attention, otherwise I see no point in sitting in front of my computer to play the damn thing, when I could, instead, lay in bed and read a book, or lounge on the couch and watch a movie, both of which tend to do stories a lot better than games do.

Then we have agreed on something. The story WILL be mindblowingly fantastic :) Okay, masterpieces like Torment may happen only once in a lifetime, but I would certainly be surprised if we won't receive something of at least MotB quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...